My suspicion is that they will change the way of recovering the spell slot. That you can recover your spell slots x times a day (PB maybe), investing 10 minutes or something similar.
I don't like that solution at all, by the way. But I'm afraid that's what they're going to do. Or maybe you can get more spell slots through EI.
I am actually figuring we will get the channel divinity treatment.
Recovering 1 spell on a short.
If I were designing it that way.
1 slot at 1st, 2 at 2, 3 at 3 4 at 4 to 9, 5 at 10.
Essentially at level 3 the warlock would have half the slots but 1 more second. And once you reach 4 slots stay there for a while because of how spells scale.
Given our current playtest, I think what's more likely is that we will just get a "Take a minute long short rest once per day" feature ALA Monk. It would be an AWFUL fix, but I can see them doing that atm.
I'm thinking something along the lines of a 3rd pact slot at level 5 or 6, a once per long rest short recovery somewhere in tier 3, and then 1-3 more invocations by level 20. One free casting of Patron spells per tier in the subclass would also go a long ways towards helping the lack of spells people feel without overshadowing traditional casters.
they're more likely to drop back and punt to ONE pact slot rather than add more. same or less, but definitely not more. invocations will cover mage cred as needed. they're up against the clock looking for an easy to balance per-encounter quick fix now. lock will almost certainly go back to functionally a half-caster archer again, but plus at least one really, really consistent nearly guaranteed pact slot ace up their sleeve.
I'm thinking something along the lines of a 3rd pact slot at level 5 or 6, a once per long rest short recovery somewhere in tier 3, and then 1-3 more invocations by level 20. One free casting of Patron spells per tier in the subclass would also go a long ways towards helping the lack of spells people feel without overshadowing traditional casters.
So are you thinking to keep the whole recover all on a short rest recovery thing? If you are I'm going to have to disagree. I think we need to get away from this design philosophy as I think it makes the game worse, not better. If your trying to argue this as a Long Rest caster I think we'll need that 'once per long rest short rest' a lot sooner than tier 3.
they're more likely to drop back and punt to ONE pact slot rather than add more. same or less, but definitely not more. they're looking for an easy to balance per-encounter quick fix. invocations will cover the rest. functionally a half-caster archer plus always a pact slot ace up their sleeve.
Seeing as how the feedback they're responding to is " we want to cast more spells," I kind of doubt they'd go with this route.
they're more likely to drop back and punt to ONE pact slot rather than add more. same or less, but definitely not more. they're looking for an easy to balance per-encounter quick fix. invocations will cover the rest. functionally a half-caster archer plus always a pact slot ace up their sleeve.
Seeing as how the feedback they're responding to is " we want to cast more spells," I kind of doubt they'd go with this route.
more invocations. plus if they can find a way to make pact slots an "encounter power" like 4e then that's lots of spell casting by itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
1) I'm really, really hoping their solution isn't just "more pact slots per short rest." Not only is that dreadfully unimaginative, it has power implications too. Say you make it PB pact slots per SR, at level 9 that's four 5th-level slots per short rest, i.e. roughly twelve 5th-level slots per day when other full casters are working with 1-2 at most. Sure they'll have no low level slots, but with that many nukes it hardly matters.
My suspicion is that they will change the way of recovering the spell slot. That you can recover your spell slots x times a day (PB maybe), investing 10 minutes or something similar.
I don't like that solution at all, by the way. But I'm afraid that's what they're going to do. Or maybe you can get more spell slots through EI.
I am actually figuring we will get the channel divinity treatment.
Recovering 1 spell on a short.
If I were designing it that way.
1 slot at 1st, 2 at 2, 3 at 3 4 at 4 to 9, 5 at 10.
Essentially at level 3 the warlock would have half the slots but 1 more second. And once you reach 4 slots stay there for a while because of how spells scale.
This! Though I doubt they will give them 5 slots ever. I suspect the scaling will be : 2 at 1st level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 10th level, with recovering 1 slot on a SR. But I suspect they are also going to keep Mystic Arcanum closer to what was in Playtest 5 than what was in 2014 PHB, while also increasing the number of invocations gained.
Please no on Arcanum Invocations; it's just a tax on people who want the full caster spell experience, which is the expectation most people have for Warlocks.
Warlocks are not and never have been a full caster. If that's the experience you want, let me direct you to the sorcerer and wizard classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Warlocks are not and never have been a full caster. If that's the experience you want, let me direct you to the sorcerer and wizard classes.
My point being they had access to spells at fullcaster rate as a native feature. The MA Invocations just felt like nerfing something that still wasn't quite as good as being a full caster to begin with.
Warlocks were never a half caster in 5th either. Half casters don't get access to 9th level spells, even in limited form.
Another option I hadn't considered until now is the possibility of going back to the original Warlock in 3rd. No spells at all, but a heaping pile of invocations, and more options for Eldritch Blast, like chain attack and area of effect invocations.
1) I'm really, really hoping their solution isn't just "more pact slots per short rest." Not only is that dreadfully unimaginative, it has power implications too. Say you make it PB pact slots per SR, at level 9 that's four 5th-level slots per short rest, i.e. roughly twelve 5th-level slots per day when other full casters are working with 1-2 at most. Sure they'll have no low level slots, but with that many nukes it hardly matters.
My suspicion is that they will change the way of recovering the spell slot. That you can recover your spell slots x times a day (PB maybe), investing 10 minutes or something similar.
I don't like that solution at all, by the way. But I'm afraid that's what they're going to do. Or maybe you can get more spell slots through EI.
I am actually figuring we will get the channel divinity treatment.
Recovering 1 spell on a short.
If I were designing it that way.
1 slot at 1st, 2 at 2, 3 at 3 4 at 4 to 9, 5 at 10.
Essentially at level 3 the warlock would have half the slots but 1 more second. And once you reach 4 slots stay there for a while because of how spells scale.
This! Though I doubt they will give them 5 slots ever. I suspect the scaling will be : 2 at 1st level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 10th level, with recovering 1 slot on a SR. But I suspect they are also going to keep Mystic Arcanum closer to what was in Playtest 5 than what was in 2014 PHB, while also increasing the number of invocations gained.
I am not sure how they will do it, but the reason I would do it like this is based on how casters are.
At level 1 all casters only have 2 first level slots and the Wizard is the only one that can recover one, as far as I remember. If warlock starts with 2 first level slots AND gets 1 recovery + EB a D8 health and armor, it is a little overboard by comparison to other casters. By giving him 1 that recovers 1 there is a trade off.
At 2 everyone bumps up to 3 first level spells, so this makes sense to bump the Lock to 2 keeping the exact same balance of needing 1 short rest to catch up.
At 3, if the warlock only has 2 second level slots while everyone else has 2 second and 4 first we see the same problem lock used to have at this level, but it is more egregious with only recovering 1 slot making the warlock behind after 1 short rest. By bumping it to 3 at level 3 the warlock how has 1/2 the number of spells a full caster has, but 1 more 2nd level spell and breaks even with current lock after 1 rest and falls behind current lock after 2 rests.
At 4 the Full casters bump to 3 2nd level spells with 4 first level spells, by bumping the Warlock to 4 spells here with 1 recovered on a short the dichotomy largely remains with around half the number of total spells but 1 more 2nd level spell.
At 5, these 4 spells become 3rd level, when full casters have 2 3rd and 3 2nd level spells. This would be potentially be the Warlock's strongest point. The full caster would have 5 "strong" spells with 2 3rd and 3 second (At this level second level spells are still relevant). This would be slightly stronger after a single rest than current and would be = after 2 short rests, and behind after 3. Mind you at this point many of the other "full caster" classes have gained some ability to regain a spell slot by this level especially if they are going caster focused, so more than just the wizard is getting 1 back on the first rest, just like the warlock is. It is only after the second rest that the warlock is gaining a spell back when no one else is.
at 6, the full caster catches up a bit with 3 2nd and 3 3rd while the Lock now only have 1 more 3rd than the full caster.
7 would be another strong bump as this would be 4 4th vs 1 4th and 3rd, but thankfully 4th level spells have historically not been much better than 3rd level spells so the difference isn't huge. by 8 it is 4 vs 2 and 3, and at 9 it is 4 5th vs 1 5th 3 4th and 3 3rd. The suggestion of 5 at 10 is because the full caster at this level would have 2 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd keeping the lock still significantly behind in total number of spells. Being more flexible with no rests, a little better with only 1 and around the same with 2 rests throughout, losing out over current if the party gets more rests. And at higher levels it becomes much less egregious than what we currently have potentially bumping to 6 5th level spells when everyone else bumps to a 3rd 5th.
Essentially it is heavily noted that the early levels of casting increases spell slots by much more than the higher levels. After level 5 the slot progression slows down for everyone, full and half caster alike, but before that point spell slot progression is fast. I feel the lock should be similar. (at 3 full casters double their number of slots, at 5 half casters double their number of slots and full casters get 2 slots and at 9 full casters and half casters both bump their number of slots up by 2, at all other times each level only gives 1 extra slot).
we know they will get more invocations. They said that. I just hope for some mechanically useful invocations and not RP junk like mask of many faces which is an instant non-pick.
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Warlocks were never a half caster in 5th either. Half casters don't get access to 9th level spells, even in limited form.
Another option I hadn't considered until now is the possibility of going back to the original Warlock in 3rd. No spells at all, but a heaping pile of invocations, and more options for Eldritch Blast, like chain attack and area of effect invocations.
Just a quick thing you did know that the Playtest 5 warlock got access to better 9th level spells at the same level with the same kind of restrictions as the original 5e lock did right?
Warlocks were never a half caster in 5th either. Half casters don't get access to 9th level spells, even in limited form.
Another option I hadn't considered until now is the possibility of going back to the original Warlock in 3rd. No spells at all, but a heaping pile of invocations, and more options for Eldritch Blast, like chain attack and area of effect invocations.
That's fairly unlikely, imo; they've stayed away from those truly massive lists of single class features, especially in PHB materials. The most we've seen are things like maneuvers and invocations, which clearly are secondary components meant to augment a class whose baseline function is comparable to similar classes. Plus they'd essentially be scrapping the entire concept of Warlocks as a caster in any respect, and has been expounded on at length here, they're clearly looking at modifying existing material here, not tearing it all down and starting over from scratch.
we know they will get more invocations. They said that. I just hope for some mechanically useful invocations and not RP junk like mask of many faces which is an instant non-pick.
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Seconding this; the point of the at-will invocations is to let you play around with low level spells that have nice effects but are too situation for people to want to frequently spend spell slots on. I have so much fun with my Feylock who's got Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. No, he's not some top tier damage machine, but I have pulled some epic shenanigans with those two Invocations.
I 100% get your frustration. It's really disheartening to see interesting changes just get completely discarded. In many ways I feel the same as you. However I think you may be a bit too invested in this. Don't get me wrong, its not bad that you care for this game. I'd say its a good thing overall. But I can't help but feel like your putting too much of yourself into this.
It may be worth considering at what point you need to step back. This may be our hobby, but it's not our lives.
100% this.
I dislike the fact that the warlock changes are being rolled back. I feel like people who loved pact magic could have continued to play the 2014 warlock and been just fine. I dislike the idea that warlocks will be 100% locked into charisma again. If we're going to be locked in to a single stat, for the love of all that is (un)holy make it INT like it was in the original 2014 playtest.
That said, changes that I don't like are not the end of the world. You win some and lose some. Anyone who looked at the outrage of "but muh unique system" who didn't think that it wouldn't be tossed was deluding themselves. While I like pact magic, I like half casting better. Much better. But I'll deal with it. Hopefully they'll come up with something that doesn't make me feel like I have to multiclass just to make it feel good. I'm much more butthurt over territorial crybaby wizards getting my access to spells re-capped than I am losing the arcane half caster I have been wanting since 2014.
You can play the UA version. Just like using the 2014 version you would need your DM to sign onto it.
All the people I know loved the new Warlock as half-caster, damn we are plenty of full-casters, specially on Arcane domain. It only required some attunement for balance.
Instead wipe everything, if majority don’t want changes OK, but register those changes in some kind of DMG or alternative PHB for those who like them.
Probably at this point it would fit more for me as seems I’d be applying more homebrew than rules at this rate (as already mentioned at some post), and all those alternatives are perfect for that. So don’t touch much the rules, as seems is going to happen, but open our minds with plenty of possibilities and then each one apply the desired ones adapting to their games.
All the people i know hated the new warlock. Anecdotes work like that. apparently enough people were in the hate it camp that they swapped it back.
we know they will get more invocations. They said that. I just hope for some mechanically useful invocations and not RP junk like mask of many faces which is an instant non-pick.
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Seconding this; the point of the at-will invocations is to let you play around with low level spells that have nice effects but are too situation for people to want to frequently spend spell slots on. I have so much fun with my Feylock who's got Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. No, he's not some top tier damage machine, but I have pulled some epic shenanigans with those two Invocations.
yep my favorites all around. Fey, Mask and Misty. :)
My suspicion is that they will change the way of recovering the spell slot. That you can recover your spell slots x times a day (PB maybe), investing 10 minutes or something similar.
I don't like that solution at all, by the way. But I'm afraid that's what they're going to do. Or maybe you can get more spell slots through EI.
I am actually figuring we will get the channel divinity treatment.
Recovering 1 spell on a short.
If I were designing it that way.
1 slot at 1st, 2 at 2, 3 at 3 4 at 4 to 9, 5 at 10.
Essentially at level 3 the warlock would have half the slots but 1 more second. And once you reach 4 slots stay there for a while because of how spells scale.
Given our current playtest, I think what's more likely is that we will just get a "Take a minute long short rest once per day" feature ALA Monk. It would be an AWFUL fix, but I can see them doing that atm.
Its actually a really good fix. At tables with 0 short rests the numbers of encounters they have will be small enough one refresh will cover it. At tables with more encounters there will be at least one normal short rest, so the extra would again still cover it. Add a few free cast invocations for people who need shield(which should probably be nerfed) or something and you are pretty much set.
While I have never seen it be a issue in play it does limit some spells that thematically fit like animate dead so they may also want to cap the total number of times you can regain spells per day.That being said I think a lot of those spells probably need to be changed. While the warlock can take it further if they had access to it the number of undead a wizard/necromancer can have going gets unwieldy at a table fast.
we know they will get more invocations. They said that. I just hope for some mechanically useful invocations and not RP junk like mask of many faces which is an instant non-pick.
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Seconding this; the point of the at-will invocations is to let you play around with low level spells that have nice effects but are too situation for people to want to frequently spend spell slots on. I have so much fun with my Feylock who's got Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. No, he's not some top tier damage machine, but I have pulled some epic shenanigans with those two Invocations.
yep my favorites all around. Fey, Mask and Misty. :)
Same.
While its likely over complicated I had hoped they would make a generic cast spell invocation and have spell tags to determine if the spell fit the invocation and if it would be either at will or 1/2/3 times a day free casts. Going away from universal lists makes that harder. Though I admit I did want more to the unique lists than what we got in the 5UA. I kind of want a "best of both worlds"(for me). Give access to lists like arcane, but trim them down significantly. The arcane list should not be the wizard list. Like maybe 1/2 of it. The remaining half divvy up into class lists. Just make sure all the classes get a somewhat substantial unique list. And for the warlock all their spells scale, freaking hunger of hadar no scaling with pact slots, so lame.
we know they will get more invocations. They said that. I just hope for some mechanically useful invocations and not RP junk like mask of many faces which is an instant non-pick.
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Seconding this; the point of the at-will invocations is to let you play around with low level spells that have nice effects but are too situation for people to want to frequently spend spell slots on. I have so much fun with my Feylock who's got Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. No, he's not some top tier damage machine, but I have pulled some epic shenanigans with those two Invocations.
yep my favorites all around. Fey, Mask and Misty. :)
Same.
While its likely over complicated I had hoped they would make a generic cast spell invocation and have spell tags to determine if the spell fit the invocation and if it would be either at will or 1/2/3 times a day free casts. Going away from universal lists makes that harder. Though I admit I did want more to the unique lists than what we got in the 5UA. I kind of want a "best of both worlds"(for me). Give access to lists like arcane, but trim them down significantly. The arcane list should not be the wizard list. Like maybe 1/2 of it. The remaining half divvy up into class lists. Just make sure all the classes get a somewhat substantial unique list. And for the warlock all their spells scale, freaking hunger of hadar no scaling with pact slots, so lame.
OMG YES. There are so many spells on the lock list that make me go "why does this not scale?" That I feel could easily scale, even something like Protection from good an evil..... why does this not increase the number of targets when upcast?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
they're more likely to drop back and punt to ONE pact slot rather than add more. same or less, but definitely not more. invocations will cover mage cred as needed. they're up against the clock looking for an easy to balance per-encounter quick fix now. lock will almost certainly go back to functionally a half-caster archer again, but plus at least one really, really consistent nearly guaranteed pact slot ace up their sleeve.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
So are you thinking to keep the whole recover all on a short rest recovery thing? If you are I'm going to have to disagree. I think we need to get away from this design philosophy as I think it makes the game worse, not better. If your trying to argue this as a Long Rest caster I think we'll need that 'once per long rest short rest' a lot sooner than tier 3.
Seeing as how the feedback they're responding to is " we want to cast more spells," I kind of doubt they'd go with this route.
more invocations. plus if they can find a way to make pact slots an "encounter power" like 4e then that's lots of spell casting by itself.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This! Though I doubt they will give them 5 slots ever. I suspect the scaling will be : 2 at 1st level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 10th level, with recovering 1 slot on a SR. But I suspect they are also going to keep Mystic Arcanum closer to what was in Playtest 5 than what was in 2014 PHB, while also increasing the number of invocations gained.
Please no on Arcanum Invocations; it's just a tax on people who want the full caster spell experience, which is the expectation most people have for Warlocks.
Warlocks are not and never have been a full caster. If that's the experience you want, let me direct you to the sorcerer and wizard classes.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
My point being they had access to spells at fullcaster rate as a native feature. The MA Invocations just felt like nerfing something that still wasn't quite as good as being a full caster to begin with.
Warlocks were never a half caster in 5th either. Half casters don't get access to 9th level spells, even in limited form.
Another option I hadn't considered until now is the possibility of going back to the original Warlock in 3rd. No spells at all, but a heaping pile of invocations, and more options for Eldritch Blast, like chain attack and area of effect invocations.
I am not sure how they will do it, but the reason I would do it like this is based on how casters are.
At level 1 all casters only have 2 first level slots and the Wizard is the only one that can recover one, as far as I remember. If warlock starts with 2 first level slots AND gets 1 recovery + EB a D8 health and armor, it is a little overboard by comparison to other casters. By giving him 1 that recovers 1 there is a trade off.
At 2 everyone bumps up to 3 first level spells, so this makes sense to bump the Lock to 2 keeping the exact same balance of needing 1 short rest to catch up.
At 3, if the warlock only has 2 second level slots while everyone else has 2 second and 4 first we see the same problem lock used to have at this level, but it is more egregious with only recovering 1 slot making the warlock behind after 1 short rest. By bumping it to 3 at level 3 the warlock how has 1/2 the number of spells a full caster has, but 1 more 2nd level spell and breaks even with current lock after 1 rest and falls behind current lock after 2 rests.
At 4 the Full casters bump to 3 2nd level spells with 4 first level spells, by bumping the Warlock to 4 spells here with 1 recovered on a short the dichotomy largely remains with around half the number of total spells but 1 more 2nd level spell.
At 5, these 4 spells become 3rd level, when full casters have 2 3rd and 3 2nd level spells. This would be potentially be the Warlock's strongest point. The full caster would have 5 "strong" spells with 2 3rd and 3 second (At this level second level spells are still relevant). This would be slightly stronger after a single rest than current and would be = after 2 short rests, and behind after 3. Mind you at this point many of the other "full caster" classes have gained some ability to regain a spell slot by this level especially if they are going caster focused, so more than just the wizard is getting 1 back on the first rest, just like the warlock is. It is only after the second rest that the warlock is gaining a spell back when no one else is.
at 6, the full caster catches up a bit with 3 2nd and 3 3rd while the Lock now only have 1 more 3rd than the full caster.
7 would be another strong bump as this would be 4 4th vs 1 4th and 3rd, but thankfully 4th level spells have historically not been much better than 3rd level spells so the difference isn't huge. by 8 it is 4 vs 2 and 3, and at 9 it is 4 5th vs 1 5th 3 4th and 3 3rd. The suggestion of 5 at 10 is because the full caster at this level would have 2 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd keeping the lock still significantly behind in total number of spells. Being more flexible with no rests, a little better with only 1 and around the same with 2 rests throughout, losing out over current if the party gets more rests. And at higher levels it becomes much less egregious than what we currently have potentially bumping to 6 5th level spells when everyone else bumps to a 3rd 5th.
Essentially it is heavily noted that the early levels of casting increases spell slots by much more than the higher levels. After level 5 the slot progression slows down for everyone, full and half caster alike, but before that point spell slot progression is fast. I feel the lock should be similar. (at 3 full casters double their number of slots, at 5 half casters double their number of slots and full casters get 2 slots and at 9 full casters and half casters both bump their number of slots up by 2, at all other times each level only gives 1 extra slot).
That's my single favorite invocation.
Disguise Self on a Charisma caster (with proficiency in Persuasion and Deception) makes for a wonderful party face, because you can be anyone at any time.
Invocations that give on demand spells will never allow damage spells to be used. If you go and look at the spell effects invocations replicated they were basically level 1 and 2 spells, that took one action to cast, that did not affect hostile units, and were limited in effect to the caster.
Just a quick thing you did know that the Playtest 5 warlock got access to better 9th level spells at the same level with the same kind of restrictions as the original 5e lock did right?
That's fairly unlikely, imo; they've stayed away from those truly massive lists of single class features, especially in PHB materials. The most we've seen are things like maneuvers and invocations, which clearly are secondary components meant to augment a class whose baseline function is comparable to similar classes. Plus they'd essentially be scrapping the entire concept of Warlocks as a caster in any respect, and has been expounded on at length here, they're clearly looking at modifying existing material here, not tearing it all down and starting over from scratch.
Seconding this; the point of the at-will invocations is to let you play around with low level spells that have nice effects but are too situation for people to want to frequently spend spell slots on. I have so much fun with my Feylock who's got Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. No, he's not some top tier damage machine, but I have pulled some epic shenanigans with those two Invocations.
You can play the UA version. Just like using the 2014 version you would need your DM to sign onto it.
All the people i know hated the new warlock. Anecdotes work like that. apparently enough people were in the hate it camp that they swapped it back.
yep my favorites all around. Fey, Mask and Misty. :)
Its actually a really good fix. At tables with 0 short rests the numbers of encounters they have will be small enough one refresh will cover it. At tables with more encounters there will be at least one normal short rest, so the extra would again still cover it. Add a few free cast invocations for people who need shield(which should probably be nerfed) or something and you are pretty much set.
While I have never seen it be a issue in play it does limit some spells that thematically fit like animate dead so they may also want to cap the total number of times you can regain spells per day.That being said I think a lot of those spells probably need to be changed. While the warlock can take it further if they had access to it the number of undead a wizard/necromancer can have going gets unwieldy at a table fast.
Same.
While its likely over complicated I had hoped they would make a generic cast spell invocation and have spell tags to determine if the spell fit the invocation and if it would be either at will or 1/2/3 times a day free casts. Going away from universal lists makes that harder. Though I admit I did want more to the unique lists than what we got in the 5UA. I kind of want a "best of both worlds"(for me). Give access to lists like arcane, but trim them down significantly. The arcane list should not be the wizard list. Like maybe 1/2 of it. The remaining half divvy up into class lists. Just make sure all the classes get a somewhat substantial unique list. And for the warlock all their spells scale, freaking hunger of hadar no scaling with pact slots, so lame.
OMG YES. There are so many spells on the lock list that make me go "why does this not scale?" That I feel could easily scale, even something like Protection from good an evil..... why does this not increase the number of targets when upcast?